|
,
<br />� ° �'�,� �'� �� ' � - . ; = _ - ' t � -- ' � � = f -
<br />�� � �,r. < = ,- -, -_ ._ - - - . . ,
<br />;` - , : � _
<br />; �1 « �1V Y ✓�,..�k'..� ..____ . . . -_ _�_ _ __ - _ .-� v ' _
<br />' _ .. . - _". . . _ . _ .. � -: S ,_ �/�/�//��FJ Ji/fs. ..,f :' /
<br />y� . �..� . "_ _" _ _ ' "___' ._. � . .. .
<br />I
<br />�J Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />i March 15, 2000
<br />Regular Meeting Page 18
<br />setback, and Park View Drive to the east actually curves away from the house,
<br />addition of 12 feet of structure would not obstruct visibility any more than the
<br />currently does.
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated this is an irregularly shaped cc
<br />difference from a normal corner lot as relates to the first cri
<br />Commissioner Miller stated she did not see any speciai
<br />Commissioner Johnson agreed. He added that this w��
<br />generally granted to improve situations found with the
<br />upgrade the property.
<br />;refore, the
<br />::;;<;.
<br />;ti:;" `;'>�iouse
<br />,.::�:�
<br />�; <;:
<br />c s�e much
<br />ouse, and �� ` �
<br />structures, in
<br />Mrs. Magoris indicated the owner of Lot 4, two lots to� ��e sou�.��d ��` ��, ����.f,��;rty� requested a
<br />variance that the residents opposed. She indicatec� chi� r-P�i�1�:nt h�ci �y �,�„�� c;;�'r �r�-age, which he
<br />, �,,,,
<br />basically doubled straight back into the lot. She �r���� �Ia��.� lowere� �d,� ����a�unding property
<br />values by 5 percent, and although the residents ��r��e�; r�����tas�, � � o this, �.��v_; �;ity approved the
<br />variance. �,; -
<br />�x�
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated this occurre ��n the p�
<br />the early 1990's. Mr. Millhouse indt���tl this gar�i
<br />• . : . . , ;
<br />t e expans�on was not consistent v�1t�: �i� ong�n� �'i
<br />�
<br />Commissioner Hegland inr������c� „a�' this ex��x��;3��
<br />proposed•t��z � �;orner lot. �°lF�i�tri�zg A,ssociat� ���a�;^
<br />yard s�F:3E� ��✓K��' F,vail�.ble:
<br />�perty loca.�� ��: `I312 Park View Terrace, in
<br />;e extended;beyond the side of the house, and
<br />ofline o�,��e structure.
<br />i.}d be approved if it were not being
<br />ted yes, depending upon how much side
<br />Commissz�f��;�� �-��;������i �>raz.�;d ���'tl�j��a,��� �rgue that this makes all corner lots exceptional. He
<br />stated he �eali�;€��� �t���� �.r�� ,�,1�y ���; ��������r lots, however, the Commission should look at this
<br />application �z� .�� ����� ;��; ����; 1�„��,;, ���� �,�-,�inal setback of the property, and the equity of all
<br />homeov,y�"��s in ihe �±r°�����.
<br />Cq�irnissioner Stevensc�� ����R�gnri out that if the configuration of the back of the lot were
<br />�����'�+�olated to the front, �heY•� would be more than a 30-foot setback. He explained that because
<br />s�� � h� irregular shape o�;the lot, which narrows in the front, there is an exception.
<br />; �t;y,
<br />����R �+��+��ioner M�1�� stated she did not believe there was a certain right to have a specific number
<br />�k �
<br />�� �`�a�� �. ��h� s���dlthat while the City allows three-car garages, two-car garages are quite typical
<br />��� r� .. ,...�:. .:.�i
<br />(;o�rurussioner Johnson inquired regarding the square-footage of accessory building area of the
<br />lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was 864 square feet, plus an additional 100 square
<br />feet, if including the shed. Commissioner Stevenson advised that this was less than the maximum
<br />requirement.
<br />
|